Gov. Andrew Cuomo's plan to reduce recidivism by giving taxpayer-funded college educations to convicts is an awful idea but, there is a taxpayer-friendly way to achieve the same goal.

With scarce resources and a crushing level of taxation, it is impossible to justify higher education for felons as a priority that warrants state funding. New Yorkers who have stayed on the right side of the law save, borrow and work side jobs to pay for college. New Yorkers should not be forced to put those who have committed crimes in a better position than those who haven't.

That said, cutting recidivism by educating prisoners is a worthy goal. There is strong evidence doing so saves taxpayers money over the long run. Presently, higher education in prison is achieving these aims on a limited scale through not-for-profits. In fact, Cuomo said his plan for taxpayer funded college education was inspired by the not-for-profit program run by Bard College. Unfortunately, Cuomo jumped right to involuntary taxation to expand the programs, rather than voluntary private contributions.

Expansion of the not-for-profit model should be the objective. Hudson Link, for example, is a not-for-profit started in 1998 when federal and state funding for prison education ceased. The organization has expanded to other prisons in the Hudson Valley. Hudson Link enjoys the support of Steve Forbes, Warren Buffet, actor Tim Robbins and other wealthy individuals.

Rather than asking New York taxpayers to fund this program on top of their own bills, the governor should have used his bully pulpit and his Rolodex to seek private funds to expand prison education programs. If the conversation had been about driving private donations to a program that will save taxpayers money by reducing recidivism, we'd be significantly closer to that goal than we are now.

Moreover, Cuomo is a great fundraiser. At a single event last month, he raised $600,000 from Hollywood big shots for a re-election campaign that's already at more than $33 million. Cuomo should ask his progressive political base to put some of their money where their mouths are and help rehabilitate inmates and reduce state spending.

Corrections savings are there, if policymakers have the will to look for them.

If we can reduce prison spending by 10 percent, I support closing any gap in funding not covered by philanthropic contributions by offering student loans to prisoners. Because felons are not good credit risks, we'd have to garnish a percentage of their wages to pay taxpayers back.

The loan is important. It teaches prisoners responsibility. It says they're not just entitled to this, they have to work for it. That will do more to cut recidivism than any handout.

Sixty percent of college students finance their education through loans. Why should a felon avoid education debt?

Any plan, whether funded by nonprofits or loans, should exclude murders, rapists and those who commit crimes against children. Herman Bell is a notorious 1970s-era cop killer who has admitted to killing NYPD officers execution-style. Over the years, taxpayers paid for him to get a bachelor's and master's degrees despite his heinous crime and life sentence.

Currently up for parole, Bell is using his taxpayer-funded education to persuade the parole board to set him free. This scenario is revolting and should never be repeated, regardless of how the program gets funded.

Our state's economy is a mess, in large part because for decades politicians found it easier to put the taxpayer on the hook rather than look for alternatives. New Yorkers are struggling with crushing taxes and rising higher education costs.

The worthy goal of reducing recidivism can be accomplished without further burdening taxpayers or giving felonious graduates an advantage over those who have obeyed the law.